Public Bodies Bill [HL]
Lord Grantchester Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I will pick up from where the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has just left off. I have a past interest as a Waterways Minister, which is a fantastic job. I cannot remember if it is part of the portfolio of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, but if not, that is regrettable, because it provides a welcome relief from most of the rest of what one has to do. I also have a present interest as a member of the board of the Environment Agency. British Waterways is the dominant organisation for canals and the Environment Agency is the dominant organisation for rivers. An amendment recently tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, points the way that the Government are thinking of going in handing over British Waterways to a trust in the third sector and transferring the Environment Agency’s navigation and waterways responsibilities to that body.
I am, broadly speaking, subject to a few caveats, in favour of that sense of direction. Eighty to 90 per cent of British Waterways will probably be covered by that new organisation, which will make it a very dominant organisation. All the small navigation authorities to which the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, referred, supported by volunteers, charities and local efforts for relatively small stretches of canal and river, look to this body for technical advice and for a forum where they can sit and be treated equally with the representatives of British Waterways and the Environment Agency. They will be the people who will most miss out as a result of the abolition of this body. British Waterways, including the Environment Agency’s navigation aspects, will take care of itself, and the charitable status, I hope, will ensure that it does a good job for the public and the environment. However, the smaller navigation authorities need this body and we should seek to retain it for them, certainly for a significant period beyond any transformation of the status of British Waterways, as my noble friend Lord Berkeley suggested.
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, I compliment the speakers this evening on giving their thoughts on the Inland Waterways Advisory Council. I suggest that this body has been included in this part of the Bill to add some weight, but the timing has not been properly considered. In rural areas, the inland waterways are a thriving enterprise for a lot of people. Volunteers undertake restoration and development work, which offers enjoyment to many people along the waterways, reconstructing our industrial heritage and providing diversification opportunities in rural areas. I tease the Minister when I say that we are not looking at a dead parrot. This situation is working extremely well. I ask him to consider the thoughts of all the noble Lords who have spoken tonight, to clarify some of the background as to why British Waterways is one of only nine bodies in the Public Bodies Bill being made into a charity, to expand the Government’s thoughts on why they think that British Waterways is best suited to charitable status and to say how, given its activities, it is likely to be able to raise the funds necessary to continue to provide all these excellent opportunities in development and restoration in rural areas for our wonderful waterways.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Henley)
My Lords, we will come to the final point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, when we get to Amendment 86. I offer my congratulations to the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner of Worcester and Lord Berkeley, on avoiding the whole wider question of the British Waterways Board, which we will deal with at that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, asked whether this was part of my brief. I can confirm by shaking my head that it is not part of my brief within the department. I will certainly discuss the matter with my honourable friend Mr Benyon. He might be prepared to take on dangerous dogs and in return I could have waterways. I could spend the weeks and months ahead cruising the waterways and avoiding this House until my noble friend the Chief Whip brings me back to reality. I make that point because it is important to remember, as other noble Lords have pointed out, the importance of the waterways and canals to all of us. Again, as I implied in my remark to the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner and Lord Berkeley, that is a wider question, which we will come to when we get to Amendment 86, which I do not suppose we will reach tonight.
We are debating not the British Waterways Board but the Inland Waterways Advisory Council. I want to make it clear that, after careful consideration, the department, the Government and Ministers have decided that they no longer need a statutory arm’s-length body to help to develop policy for the inland waterways. Although the Inland Waterways Advisory Council has provided very useful input, policy development is rightly the role of government departments and Ministers working closely with delivery bodies and stakeholder representatives, including such bodies as the Association of Inland Navigation Authorities, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Phillips and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. We will continue to develop closer working relationships with all waterways interests. That will enable Ministers to benefit from more direct and tailored input into policy development.
Our proposal to move the British Waterways Board into civil society in April 2012 will also mean that, for the future, the Government will no longer need an organisation to provide advice on policy development. The Government and navigation authorities need to engage with stakeholders directly in the design, implementation and management of the new structure. The Government’s decision has been discussed with the chairman of the Inland Waterways Advisory Council and individual members of that authority have been notified.
That decision does not indicate that we will place any less emphasis on the importance of inland waterways. Indeed, the department will be more directly involved as it seeks to place inland waterways on a more sustainable footing through our work towards moving the British Waterways Board from being a public corporation, as has been mentioned, to a new charity in civil society. As I said, we will discuss that when we come to Amendment 86. For that reason, we do not think it necessary to continue to have the Inland Waterways Advisory Council. Noble Lords asked in simple terms how long it would stay around. We will consider precisely how long we need to keep the body in place when we have the results of the consultation on the British Waterways Board, which will be under way fairly soon.
Public Bodies Bill [HL]
Lord Grantchester Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Grantchester
I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for the excellent way that he has put forward his amendment tonight. I thank my noble friend for his parental advocacy of this body. I also thank other noble Lords who have spoken with great passion on this amendment, which goes to the heart of this Government’s attitude to rural livelihoods and rural communities.
The Commission for Rural Communities was set up to promote awareness of the social and economic needs of people who live and work in rural areas, and to help decision makers across and beyond government to identify how these needs can best be addressed. It has given valuable independent advice to the Government and has produced a number of excellent reports, many of which have been referred to approvingly in recent rural affairs debates in your Lordships’ House.
The arguments about the usefulness of outside, independent and impartial advice, rather than simply relying on departmental in-house sources of advice from civil servants, have been well aired in relation to a variety of bodies proposed to be scrapped in the Public Bodies Bill. In particular, the debate on the pesticides advisory committees and the remarks made by my noble friends Lord Whitty and Lady Quin, and others on 29 November, were very pertinent. The value of the report of the Commission for Rural Communities was mentioned in a debate on rural affairs initiated once again by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on 15 July. That then informed your Lordships’ later debate on the Prince’s Countryside Fund.
The CRC focuses on practical outcomes for people who live and work in our rural areas. I pay tribute to Stuart Burgess who with his team accompanied a tour on the work being done in market towns, which was a strong initiative in my local area in Cheshire. The second round of the town centre initiative fund expanded excellent help towards 15 further rural local authorities; that is, 38 per cent of recipient authorities compared to only 6 per cent in the first round of that initiative. It has been involved in collaboration and partnerships through local areas, and in working to find the most effective solutions at the least cost. It has picked up on local challenges and strengths, and has been part of local economic assessments, which have been vital to the work of regional development agencies and, through the rural development of England proposals, has worked with the development agencies, which is another body we will look at after the new year. It has become a repository of expert advice and opinion to take advice of rural needs to the heart of government.
It is clear that there has been no real consultation about the abolition of this commission, despite the assurances from the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, about consultations in an earlier debate. In answer to a Written Question, HL2837, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said:
“The decision to abolish the Commission for Rural Communities was made after full consideration within Defra and the usual consultation across government”.—[Official Report, 25/10/10; col. WA 224.]
No wider consultations have been undertaken.
Has the effect on rural areas really been considered? The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to costs and rightly pointed out that the upfront abolition costs are in the region of £2.5 million. Unlike many of the other Defra bodies where cost savings are negligible or non-existent, this could be one where some costs may be at issue. However, one has to look at the value for money that this expenditure has produced. If the Government commission reports in the future on the kinds of subjects that have previously been considered by the CRC, there would presumably be considerable costs in undertaking them. Furthermore, independent, impartial advice is a valuable commodity.
The Defra Minister, Richard Benyon, has also said that proposed changes to Defra’s public bodies will create modest savings. The main benefits of the proposals in the Public Bodies Bill are to increase transparency and accountability in public bodies. But how can accountability be improved if existing bodies, such as those we are discussing tonight, which publish their reports and proceedings and have excellent websites, high visibility in rural areas, and make minutes of their meetings available to everyone, are abolished and replaced by Defra in-house bodies? The CRC made a difference. This simply does not make sense.
I turn now to the announcement made on 29 June by the Secretary of State. A new policy unit is to be set up within her department covering rural communities. It will work across government to ensure that rural interests are reflected in programmes. I join other noble Lords who have asked the Minister how an internal policy unit can have the profile to cut across and into other departmental activities. Can these new arrangements be effective? What evidence will he require of his department to support the Government’s contention that the work done so admirably by the Commission for Rural Communities will still be carried out as effectively in the future?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Henley)
My Lords, I shall now address the amendment and put things into an appropriate perspective. I welcome the remarks of all noble Lords who have spoken about the CRC. The noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, described himself as the midwife of the body, but he was then described as its father by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. We are getting our metaphors a bit mixed up on this occasion. However, as I said, I want to put this into perspective, so I shall start by reminding the Committee, as other noble Lords have done, that we announced our intention way back on 29 June that, subject to the passing of legislation, we would abolish the Commission for Rural Communities along with its statutory functions as just one part of the Bill before us.
I think I can speak for all my fellow Ministers and future Ministers once my time is up when I say that the decision to abolish the commission does not reflect in any way a reduction in the Government’s rural commitment. On the contrary, the Government are committed to improving the quality of life for people living and working in rural areas and intend to put the fair treatment of rural communities at the centre of government. There are already many rural organisations and commentators who will continue to hold the Government to account, as happened with the previous Government. I think that noble Lords might remember one faintly rural community, the Women’s Institute, which I seem to remember a former Prime Minister going to address but not coming away from that occasion exactly unbloodied. However, I think he enjoyed the experience.
I remind the Committee of what the name Defra stands for. It is the department responsible for the environment, food and rural affairs. It is the department that works to promote the interests of rural people within all government policies. I can speak for all my colleagues in the department—I am sure it will be true of all future Ministers and, dare I say it, those like the noble Lords, Lord Knight of Weymouth and Lord Clark, who have served in similar departments in previous Governments—by saying that we will continue to push for rural affairs. Many of us have a strong rural background. The noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, comes from my part of the world and I was grateful for his reference to the fact that we support the same football team and read the same newspaper. We will continue, as he and the noble Lord, Lord Knight, and others have done, to champion rural issues across the Government.
I must make it clear that we as a department will continue to work with a vast range of departments on issues of importance to rural people. This will include working with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on broadband. It is an important issue and I am glad that noble Lords mentioned it. The noble Lord, Lord Clark, referred to what my honourable friend in another place is doing in Penrith and the border region for north Cumberland in trying to bring the project forward. He has had long discussions with both the DCMS and my colleague, Richard Benyon, who has responsibility for these matters in Defra on that issue. We will continue to work with the Department for Communities and Local Government on housing and planning and with the Department for Transport on rural transport issues.
My noble friend Lord Newton kept emphasising that he was a junior Minister, but he was actually the first Secretary of State I served under in the Department of Social Security, and I hope that I learnt a great deal from him in doing so.
Lord Grantchester
Lord Grantchester
I shall speak also to Amendments 35, 36, 38 and 48, which are grouped with this one. Amendment 29 is in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, who apologises to the House that she cannot be present today. I declare my interest as a farmer in Cheshire and I apologise to the House for it having slipped my mind to mention this interest on the previous amendment.
The public bodies within the government department of Defra are what we are discussing today. Some, as the previous amendment showed, go to the heart of the Government’s strategic vision for the countryside. I concur that we may well need to look at those issues later as this legislation goes through the House.
One could probably describe the bodies that I shall refer to in relation to this batch of amendments as not of strategic importance; this is more of a tidying-up exercise. Nevertheless, it is important to bring them to the attention of the House and to ask the Minister to try to clarify what he thinks will be the work of the department, how it will be structured and how the activities undertaken by these bodies will be done within the Government, either by independent experts or within his own department as advisory committees.
Amendment 29 concerns the Committee on Agricultural Valuation. As the Minister said, it is recognised on all sides of the House that the deficit that has been created is consequential on the banking situation, and all sides of the House have proposals to tackle the deficit. We on this side were looking at that committee as a key one to tidy up and abolish in this period. It has not sat for over 10 years and, when it did so, it was largely made up of members of the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, which has been instrumental in providing advice to Defra and indeed does so now as part of the Tenancy Reform Industry Group, which has been carrying on the work of that committee to great advantage. I understand that the group is looking at draft replacement statutory instruments to be brought in on the end of tenancy valuations, concerning such erudite matters as residual manurial values—before all eyes mist over in a glaze of appreciation—and the volatility of fertiliser prices that make this job so important to the nation.
Amendment 35 is on environment protection advisory committees. On these, we understand that the aim is to establish more flexible non-statutory engagement arrangements at a more local level. The Environment Agency must be able to engage more actively locally with society, the public and business. Effective stakeholder engagement and partnerships are key to successful delivery on the ground. With these amendments, we are seeking to engage the Minister to clarify the successor arrangements that will be put in place. We understand and agree that the design of the detail of this new approach is an important next step. The Environment Agency will be working closely with the chairs and members of the current committees to develop thinking on how best to maximise future local community engagement and to ensure smooth transition with partnerships and local stakeholders. Can the Minister tell us what stage these discussions have reached and clarify that, as this Bill passes through its stages in this House and is enacted, these new arrangements will be programmed to come into being in parallel with these committees being wound up?
Amendment 36 concerns Food from Britain and is a tidying-up exercise, as the body has already been administratively wound down. However, once again, it would be instrumental and helpful to be told what headway the successor arrangements are making with the activity that was carried out by Food from Britain. Looking to my interests in the farming industry, I know that that body has been very important in the past in promoting food from Britain both within this country and overseas. It would be helpful to understand how the successor bodies are being taken forward.
Amendment 48 concerns regional and local fisheries advisory committees. Will the Minister advise the House on the successor arrangements in that regard? I beg to move.
Lord Clark of Windermere
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 38, which concerns the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee. I do so in the same spirit as my noble friend on the Front Bench in that I seek to ascertain whether the Government have the right processes in place to take over any jobs that this body may have undertaken. It would be foolish of me to oppose the abolition of this committee, as we stopped it meeting under my watch as chair of the Forestry Commission. I remember it well because we reviewed all our advisory committees and considered that there was no real justification for the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee. According to the Minister’s Answer to a Parliamentary Question, it has not met since September 2005 and fell into abeyance in June 2006 when the members’ terms of office expired. In the second part of the Parliamentary Question, I asked what the cost of the body was. The Minister replied that it had cost £625 since November 2005, which is about £125 a year. I suspect that it does not cost that much and that most of that money was incurred in winding up the body in the latter part of 2005 and in 2006, so in essence it is a no-cost body. That is an important point.
I spent this afternoon looking at the Second Reading of the Forestry Bill on 5 August 1919—I was able to do so in view of the delays incurred when another matter was being discussed in the House—which set up the Forestry Commission. It is interesting how much wise debate took place when the Forestry Commission was being established. One thing that was debated at great length was whether Scotland should have its own, separate Forestry Commission. That has not changed. Almost 80 years later devolution took place to a certain extent and great powers were given back to Scotland and to Wales, as well as to England, to run their part of the forestry estate. Flexibility was also built into that legislation, which was then carried forward into the subsequent Acts affecting forestry. There was no Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee; it was simply a central advisory committee. I have never been quite sure why the Government are so intent on abolishing it.
I come back to my other point about the big society, which seems to be the Government’s underlying philosophy. This committee was a radical proposal for the time, in 1919. A very radical and progressive Liberal Prime Minister, Lloyd George, was trying—
Lord Henley
I see things differently from the noble Lord. If it is not doing anything, if it has not met since 2005, if it is what I have described in Monty Python terms as a dead parrot, why do we not get rid of it? We do not need to have it in our armoury. Should we need such a thing again, we can set up an appropriate panel as necessary. It is not necessary to keep it going as the noble Lord wishes.
We have dealt with quite a few dead parrots. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, would accept that they are dead, dead and very dead, particularly the one that has not sat since 2005.
I now turn to the two remaining bodies: the environment protection advisory committees and the regional and local fisheries advisory committees. They are statutory committees that advise the Environment Agency. The Government's aim in proposing the abolition of those committees in Schedule 1 is not to remove that advisory function. Indeed, both committees have provided valuable advice to the agency, and it will continue to need that advice. However, having two sets of committees on a regional, statutory basis creates a degree of inflexibility and inefficiency that is now proving unduly restrictive.
Defra now wishes the Environment Agency to establish more flexible non-statutory arrangements that will enable better local engagement of all interested parties at the catchment level, including in delivery, together with a more integrated approach between environmental protection, conservation and fisheries. Such a structure will have the flexibility to evolve as needed, without the constraints of a prescriptive statutory remit at the regional level, and will better address local priorities while working with partners and communities to deliver improved local engagement. That will enable civil society to take the lead where appropriate, rather than continue the current focus on advising the Environment Agency.
I hope that noble Lords will accept that. I appreciate that those two bodies are slightly different from the earlier ones, but I hope that the noble Lord will accept my basic premise that certainly three out of the five are very, very dead parrots indeed. I therefore hope that he will feel that he can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Grantchester
I thank the Minister for that clarification. On this side of the House, we will not be tempted to enter into his script of re-enacting Monty Python and claim that the parrot is only half dead. We will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Agriculture: Single Farm Payments
Lord Grantchester Excerpts(14 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
My Lords, I cannot give my noble friend a precise figure, but there are very few left. My understanding is that most of those remaining relate to problems other than those she describes, such as those in connection with probate or other such personal changes that might affect them. However, the agency is certainly doing what it can to clear the small remaining backlog.
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, will the Minister pay tribute to the staff at Defra who I know have worked tirelessly on these issues, and will he give an assurance that farmers will not be penalised for mistakes that are not of their doing? In asking these questions, I declare my interest as a farmer and would like to put the record straight that the microphones did not pick up my declaration last week.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said about the staff in Defra. I have taken it on board and will pass it back to the department. However, there are some tough messages not only for the RPA but also for Defra itself as a result of the review of the agency that has been published today. I can also give the noble Lord an assurance that the RPA is already committed to not applying penalties in specific circumstance where a farmer has had an outstanding mapping query on a land parcel and as a result has estimated entries on his form.
Agriculture: Farming
Lord Grantchester Excerpts(14 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
My Lords, if I can answer briefly, we must move away from the idea that the only way of solving problems is to regulate. To take just one of my noble friend’s examples, the EID for sheep, I can give him an assurance that, when Commissioner Dalli, who has responsibility for this in the EU, visits this country, we will certainly make him aware of the problems that electronic identification of sheep is creating. I am sure that my honourable friend in another place, Mr Paice, will make a point of encouraging him to visit one of the big sheep sales to see what the problems are.
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the least necessary aspects of regulation is the multiplicity of visits and inspections under each protocol? Will the task force look at the cost to the farmer of compliance with each regulation?
Lord Henley
The task force will certainly look at that. As has been made clear, it will look not only at regulation but at the multiplicity of inspections, because inspections take up time.
Dog Control Bill [HL]
Lord Grantchester Excerpts(14 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Grantchester
The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 has attracted notoriety as a primary example of flawed legislation. It bears the hallmarks of being produced as a hurried response to a public outcry for action following a number of dog attacks, largely by pit bull-type dogs. Despite this, nearly 20 years later we are still trying to find a better answer to regulate the interaction between man and his best friend, the dog. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for his constant championing of a better control regime over many years. I declare my interest as a farmer in Cheshire, albeit one without a dog, although I have worked with farm dogs in the past.
Since the law has fallen into disrepute here, it behoves us to improve matters. The Dangerous Dogs Act has failed to ban the ownership of four extreme types of dog. Indeed, through the index of exempted dogs, it sends out a mixed message. Under Section 1, the number of convictions for ownership has risen from 17 in 2004 to 115 in 2008, while the number of dogs added to the exempt list has risen over the two years from 2007 to 2009 from 185 to 396. This position has arisen as a consequence of the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997, which repealed the mandatory destruction orders, provided that certain necessary conditions are met.
Following yet further high profile dog attacks in 2006, the legislation was reviewed by Defra in 2007. After extensive consultations with the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Dogs Trust, it was concluded that the current legislation was sufficiently robust to deal effectively with the problem. This was despite the cogent championing by many organisations that the Act’s basis of targeting breeds or breed types was the wrong approach, and the deed of the dog—from a lack of control or the irresponsible action of the owners—was the nub of the problem.
Since 2007, there has been a further explosion of attacks and ownership, brought about by the trend in gang culture to own such dogs as status dogs and use them in gang-related crime, drug dealing and anti-social behaviour. In response, the Metropolitan Police set up the Status Dogs Unit in March 2009. Defra announced funding in July 2009 to train designated dog legislation officers and issued extensive guidance and best practice notes to a wide range of audiences, including the courts, local authority officers, housing officers and the police, as well as pet owners. It has been difficult to obtain information and figures to reveal the extent and size of the problem as there are no centrally collected figures on the number of dogs seized or destroyed. The costs of law enforcement are also difficult to obtain as police forces do not appear to have separate budget provision for dealing with dangerous dogs. However, there are significant costs associated with inspecting premises, transport, veterinary fees, kennelling, prosecution and expert witness costs, as well as extensive court time.
Just recently there have been yet more tragic cases of dog attacks. I am indebted to Constable Kerr of Merseyside Police, who put me in touch with Chief Inspector Martin Woosey to update me on the position on Merseyside. In recent years, Merseyside Police have started recording information. Seizure of dogs averages around 150 dogs a year. Since 30 November 2009, under Section 1, “Ownership”, and Section 3, “Dogs Dangerously Out of Control”, Merseyside Police have received 988 calls from members of the public, and there have been a further 1,000 dog-related incidents where search warrants were obtained to enter premises. On 30 November 2009, John-Paul Massey, a four year-old boy, was mauled to death at his grandmother’s house, while she was babysitting, by a dog belonging to the boy’s uncle who lived with the boy's grandmother. Less than three years earlier, a five year-old, Ellie Lawrenson, died in similar circumstances in St Helens. These are tragic circumstances.
In 2009, 69 dogs were destroyed and in the period since the death of John-Paul Massey, of 311 dogs seized, 105 have been destroyed. At any one time around 80 dogs will be in kennels, with many having been kennelled for over 12 months, not only at considerable cost but with increasing welfare fears and associated veterinary attention. Merseyside Police have nine specially trained dog legislation officers. In comparison, the Metropolitan Police have seized 1,152 dogs in the 2009-10 financial year. In the four-year period 2004 to 2008, the RSPCA reported a 12-fold increase in reports of dog fighting, which can range from accidental scraps to organised fights, with the majority of incidents concerning anti-social behaviour with dogs.
The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association reports that, sadly, 61 per cent of attacks on guide dogs occurred when the guide dog was in harness by other dogs overwhelmingly off the lead and in public places. At present, dog-on-dog attacks usually come under the Dogs Act 1871 when only civil sanctions apply.
The problem legislation has to contend with is that this is not a single issue. Dogs that show aggression in the home, dogs that present a danger to the public and other dogs in accessible places and dogs that are kept as a status symbol pose differing risk analyses and demand differing solutions. While primarily an urban issue, dog control is becoming a more pressing problem in rural areas, with a lack of appreciation by walkers that their dogs can cause disease as well as distress to livestock. Neospora Caninum is spread by dog mess, increasing the chances of abortion in affected cattle, and more crucially leading to a 95 per cent chance that the disease will be vertically transmitted in-utero from cow to calf, rendering the breeding potential of the female virtually worthless. However, the legislation must not inadvertently affect the legitimate activities of working dogs on farms.
Dog control notices were introduced by the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, and relate to any dog being in a certain public place and being prohibited from doing certain things. Control of dogs, although covered in a variety of ways, is thus at best a patchwork; at worst, it results in poor dog welfare and in extreme cases poses a real risk to public safety.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has admirably spoken to his Bill. It very logically follows the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act of April 2010 passed by the Scottish Parliament. The Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, will remove the focus from breeds and instead will make owners responsible for the behaviour of their dogs by focusing on “deed not breed”. It also extends the coverage of the 1991 Act to any place rather than just public places. It will build in England on the new regime of dog control orders, which will enable local authorities to impose requirements on the dog owner where that person has failed to keep the dog under proper control. Where failure occurs, dog control notices will provide a range of sanctions, including destruction of the dog and disqualification from ownership and keeping an animal.
On behalf of these Benches, I largely support these provisions. In drawing up his Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has been very ably supported by the Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group, made up, I believe, of organisations including the animal welfare charities of which he has spoken, the British Veterinary Association, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and Wandsworth Borough Council.
In response to the growing concern over public safety issues and to improve animal welfare, Defra went out to consultation in March 2010, which has only just recently closed. The DDA study group has largely been in unison with its submissions. However, in drilling down into the detail of further measures to control dogs, there is a divergence of views regarding the use of licensing, micro-chipping and guidance improvements. The responses to the consultation have also revealed a sharp divergence of views between the DDA study group, the RSPCA and ACPO. This was highlighted as well in the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010. This Act, in contrast to the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and along with the RSPCA/ACPO position does not remove the ban on the four breed types included under Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Furthermore, the RSPCA, in conjunction with ACPO, has submitted to Defra a rival Bill which is seriously divergent in its provisions from the Bill before your Lordships today. From these Benches, we would need to examine in some detail the discrepancies between the two Bills. For this Bill today to proceed through Committee, comprehensive analysis would need to be undertaken to assess whether there could be a “hybridisation” or joined-up approach to the issues. Would the Minister in his reply clarify what policy would guide his department, what cost analysis would be undertaken in regard to the various submissions, and whether and to what degree it would be necessary or advantageous to have a common regime with the devolved Administrations?
I have identified a few crucial differences between the Bill today and the RSPCA draft Bill. They are, first, the retention or not of Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 regarding the banning of various breed types. I have sympathy for the view that although breed-specific legislation is incorrect and unjust, it provides a preventive framework and effective approach against this extreme type of dog that can cause death and severe injury.
The second fundamental difference between the Bills relates to responsibility for administration of the control regime. The noble Lord’s Bill places responsibility in the hands of local authorities, whereas the RSPCA draft Bill has as an “authorised officer” either a police constable or local authority officer. The noble Lord outlined in his introduction that he would bring in an amendment to reconcile these two positions. In his reply, will the noble Lord explain whether and how wide he consulted among police authorities and local authorities on the provisions of his Bill?
Thirdly, there are discrepancies regarding the reintroduction of a dog licence and consequential databases, whether to cover all dogs, pedigree dogs with a breed characteristic with health issues or only dogs under control notices.
The fourth difference is the extent to which microchipping will be applicable to dogs and, lastly, there is a difference in the level of fines for breaches between the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, which imposes fines up to level 3 on the standard scale, and the RSPCA draft Bill with fines at level 5. Will the Minister explain the difference between the two levels? These are the immediately recognisable discrepancies which would give these Benches cause to proceed with caution. Upon deeper analysis, there may be more discrepancies.
The RSPCA has written in its briefing that it cannot support the Bill before your Lordships as it believes that it would be a retrograde step for human safety and animal welfare. It comments that the Bill does not have a genuine preventive approach to ensure that owners of dogs would be more responsible. The provisions of the Bill are reactive—they relate to when an incident has occurred. The RSPCA believes that early intervention is crucial in improving standards and preventing serious and fatal incidents. Speaking more generally, what assessment have the exponents of this Bill undertaken in regard to its effect on magistrates’ courts? One of the major concerns relates to the potential impact on welfare and costs, should all appeals and prosecutions be taken through the courts.
For these Benches therefore, this Bill faces severe challenges. It would be unwise for the law on dog control to be brought into further disrepute by being pressed into a partial solution by the hasty consideration brought about by this Bill.